bigbear3764 wrote:Editor issue. Somewhere there is a road or landmark with an improper city name. If you have the highlight script, it makes it easy to find.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is an "S" displayed by itself next to a street named "S Chaparrel Ct". I cannot edit that area because it is outside of my driving range. How do I report a map problem in this area? Or can I be upgraded to edit within 10 miles of where I drive?

Post your request in the Board index ‹ Map ‹ Editing ‹ Unlock request forum. Make sure you read the post stuck to the top of the forum entitled "READ FIRST! Request instruction SUMMARY & Level 6 Requests"... Please be clear that you are requesting an update because it's outside your area...

daknife wrote:Time for a bump, based on this question https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33447&p=333311#p305597 in the newcommers sub-forum. It seems to me we've reached a consensus as to the limited scope of landmarks that should be emplaced. Can one of you wonderful Wiki-masters work on getting the Wiki to echo the limited list of acceptable Landmark/POI's to be placed. The question that prompted this post was about Malaysia so it wouldn't be a total answer but if we can point to a limited list in the US perhaps it can help establish a standard for limited lists elsewhere as well.

We setup Connecticut Landmark Guidelines (see link in my signature to CT Wiki) & a few of the champs have suggested we use it as a base to start a champs discussion to come up with a nationwide standard and then bring that to the rest of the user base for comments. Expect to see something in the next few months.

Its going to take time for the champs to reach an agreement on a recommendation and then open that up to the general user base for further refinement. It took us a few months to come up with the CT guidelines (starting with the initial everyone puts their map/don't map/don't care votes and going through a few rounds of refinement and setting conditions). These things take time, be patient.

daknife wrote:That's an idea, but this thread (with participation of several Champs and active CM's) had already come to a general consensus as to the limited nature and scope of landmarks. Why do we need to wait for the Champs to come to a second exclusive consensus? and then get to thrash that all out again.

Mainly because people don't follow directions & with something this large in scope, and by breaking it down into smaller groups that hopefully can follow directions long enough so I can actually tally up their thoughts on it.

daknife wrote:Edited to add that the CT list is pretty good, but excludes some landmarks accepted in this thread such as significant Religious landmarks, while excluding everyday houses of worship. This is a point here in Utah where there is an LDS (Mormon) Chapel on every other block in some areas, those I've always excluded (I am LDS) as well as all other regular houses of worship, but LDS Temples are considered special destinations even here in Utah where we have 12 of them, and thus I've allowed them as well as the Hare-Krishna Temple and the one Catholic Cathedral in the State.

We had a discussion around "Major" religious sites where we decided to define it as "things like the Vatican, Kaaba, Western Wall – which CT has none... Agree, not mapped. – Done, until the Vatican is moved to CT, then we may reconsider." (colors are different users). The Mormon Temples would certainly warrant a discussion, although we did specifically talk about St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, I'm not sure where we landed on that one - we might have dropped the discussion because it's not in CT.

daknife wrote:Similarly in this thread it was mentioned and not contested (and thus accepted in my understanding) that bodies of water that are common driver navigation landmarks and are NOT found in the water layer are allowed. The river running the length of the Salt Lake Valley, the Jordan River, is not in the water layer for most of it's length so I've just authorized the editor who has been begging to add it, to do so.

That is something we're still looking into - we're currently having issues figuring out what's in the water layer and what's not. We wanted to get the basics out first (so we had something to point users towards) and would continue working on these things later...

daknife wrote:Okay but you exclude a number of very concerned CM's and even AM's who are trying to enforce the editing guidelines in their area's. The Wiki is currently worthless in regards to landmarks. We had a very good discussion in this thread. It seemed like a general consensus was achieved here, one that involved more active editors than just the exclusive champs. And then you decide to just toss that and exclude those who haven't been able to make it to a meet-up from the discussion. One that has already been had and to my opinion an agreement or at least a baseline was achieved. One that is similar but different from the list in the CT wiki page.

Meanwhile the average editor who cares enough to try to follow the wiki is given nothing to work with in regards to landmarks. So we end up with messes like in thread I linked to a few posts ago where so much is landmarked that landmarks become worthless.

I don't see much of a consensus here at all - and no logical organization of the discussion either, it's just everyone throwing in their two cents here and there...

I never said anything about doing this at a meet-up. And I'm surprised at you thinking this thread won't be looked at by the champs for user's opinions as we craft a recommendation. As well as you ignoring me saying that once the champs come up with their recommendation, it should be released to the userbase for comments and possible revision BEFORE becoming final.

HOWEVER, several of the champs have said to just take the CT guidelines, make some tweaks (mainly the CT specific wording) let the champs comment & publish it.

Where do you see differences between the CT Guidelines & what you see as agreed upon in this thread? Please cite specific posts (click on the title) and I'll look at them.

You're correct, there are certainly some changes that have to be made to the CT list to make it National Friendly and part of what I'm working on proposing to the champs first will include a lot of language similar to "Please see local Wiki Pages / local Area Managers for information on what is considered 'Major' and mapped for this category in your area". We will still need local guidelines/specifics.

Religious Sites: Did you see my post above that puts some info about the discussion we had in CT? The one where we decided to landmark "Major" sites & quickly decided that CT had none, so we moved on, but the "Major" discussion is still valid. That's something that would be included the National Guidelines. The basic idea was if the religious site was one which someone would make a pilgrimage to/visit as a tourist attraction, it should probably be mapped - but like I said, we quickly decided that CT doesn't have any (well, since the Holy Land park closed).

Water: I posted above that we were working on figuring out what was there & what wasn't in CT. We did the original work on the guidelines for CT when there were issues with the water layer & we didn't want to mess with it. I would certainly agree (as would the other CT users) that if it's not on the water layer, and is significant it should probably be mapped - HOWEVER, we need to talk to Waze about this as they may be adding other water bodies (they are mostly working on coastlines now) and un-submerging roads.

Cemeteries: Yes, a lot were basemapped, not all were. What value do the add? In CT, we're not going around deleting them, but we aren't adding them either.

Military Bases: There will be exceptions to every guideline as we can't write anything that is iron clad because we need flexibility. You mention Hill AFB, and it's landmarked so people don't go through the base, but 1) isn't there a fence around the entire base? 2) aren't all the roads on base a mix of "Private" and "Parking Lot" (preventing Waze from routing through the base already)? At Naval Submarine Base New London we have to keep renaming the on-base gas station to "NEX Fueling (NO PUBLIC ACCESS)" as we don't want to get complaints about unauthorized people trying to go there from off base. We've tried to reach out to a few of the on-base users (based on their editing) to work more on their map (including landmarks), but they haven't responded. Overlapping landmarks causes issues which is one of the bigger reasons we went with the city layer.

Fire Dept: In most places they are considered a "Safe Haven" and you can get emergency medical care there or if they are on a call there is a call box out front. Most maps mark these - It's worth it.

Police Dept: The City/Town name just adds unnecessary words to the map. In your example does the person being followed care if they are going to "Anytown Police Dept" or "Othertown Police Dept"? No, they just care they are going to a "Police Dept", any Police Dept. Anyway, if one were to search, they would use POI search, not landmarks. It's there to help people see it on the map.

Golf Courses: Private Courses will appear in POI Search or can buy advertising from Waze. This falls under the "Don't map individual businesses" guideline.

Stadiums: They just look cooler with the shape & the parking lot roads handle the jams & missing roads reports. It was something we played with before making this decision.

Interchanges: The issue is that larger, more complex interchanges would be very hard to build, label & control. The problem with "hacking" the city layer like that is that a report on the overpass will display as "Main St, <Exit #>" instead of the town where it is.

Other things of note, one does not have to attend a meetup to become a Champ. No one has said anything about locking the userbase out of the discussion, in fact I said the opposite several times.

AndyPoms wrote:Fire Dept: In most places they are considered a "Safe Haven" and you can get emergency medical care there or if they are on a call there is a call box out front. Most maps mark these - It's worth it.

Maybe because I work at one, but I agree. In Illinois, they are a safe haven to drop off new borns, no questions asked.

I had that in my response, but took it out at the last minute as I wasn't sure if it was just something in the North East.

sbelekevich wrote:Out of curiosity, what's the major issue with mapping water bodies? Redundancy? Server load?Also, there was an editor out by me who landmarked some water just so the name had the potential to show up on the client. (ex. Mansur Bay, Ricker Bay, Lake Winnebago) What are the thoughts on that?

The water layer already contains names and they display in the client. Waze is also currently working on the water layer (starting with the coast lines) and we don't want to interfere with that work. The national language will reflect that and leave the door open to reevaluate once Waze completes this work.

sbelekevich wrote:Also for PLots, wouldn't you want to map parking garages with public access, whether paid or unpaid, as a parking lot?

As explained in the CT guidelines, those lots are covered by both POI serach and the new |P| icon when approaching your destination (which we have determined comes from FourSquare).

skbun wrote:Just for the record, the water itself shows in the client, but names don't unless editors added water objects. Have a look yourself. They DO show in Livemap, but I've never seen anything suggesting they are the 'same layer'. Are we sure about this?

I've seen the names of both the Connecticut River and Wethersfield Cove appear on the map - neither of them have had landmarks in the last year.

Waze's water data came from the US TIGER maps (just like the roads did).

skbun wrote:We can see two different generated static vector images generated from this data on the Livemap and on the client...

I'd guess that the one on the Livemap got slightly higher granularity when generated, say...to make sure that water objects that are 75x75ft or larger show up on the map, in general - and it has names associated with the objects that are exactly the same as they appear in the NHD data. (E.g. 'Lk Fenwick' at http://www.waze.com/livemap/?zoom=15&la ... yers=BTTTT ). The one in the Waze client is slightly LESS granular...its accuracy is to objects about 100x100ft, and to the best of my knowledge, those names were NOT imported or if they were, they're not visible. Stuff that's smaller overall, like small rivers or creeks, don't show up at all by either standard even though they are present and named in the NHD.

The livemap hasn't been visually updated in quite a while (well before Waze started working on the water layer), so we can't trust that as a reference source.

Like I said, let's let the Waze staff finish their water layer work and THEN we can discuss what to do about the water layer and water landmarks.